No abstract

In order to determine how to act in situations of potential agonistic conflict, individuals must assess multiple features of a prospective foe that contribute to the foe's resource-holding potential, or formidability. Across diverse species, physical size and strength are key determinants of formidability, and the same is often true for humans. However, in many species, formidability is also influenced by other factors, such as sex, coalitional size, and, in humans, access to weaponry. Decision-making involving assessments of multiple features is enhanced by the use of a single summary variable that encapsulates the contributions of these features. Given both a) the phylogenetic antiquity of the importance of size and strength as determinants of formidability, and b) redundant experiences during development that underscore the contributions of size and strength to formidability, we hypothesize that size and strength constitute the conceptual dimensions of a representation used to summarize multiple diverse determinants of a prospective foe's formidability. Here, we test this hypothesis in humans by examining the effects of a potential foe's access to weaponry on estimations of that individual's size and strength. We demonstrate that knowing that an individual possesses a gun or a large kitchen knife leads observers to conceptualize him as taller, and generally larger and more muscular, than individuals who possess only tools or similarly mundane objects. We also document that such patterns are not explicable in terms of any actual correlation between gun ownership and physical size, nor can they be explained in terms of cultural schemas or other background knowledge linking particular objects to individuals of particular size and strength. These findings pave the way for a fuller understanding of the evolution of the cognitive systems whereby humans – and likely many other social vertebrates – navigate social hierarchies.

of young male risk-taking may be byproducts of the greater risk-proneness that is a prerequisite 70 for the propensity to enter into potentially lethal male-male confrontations. Second, many 71 nonviolent forms of risk-taking, such as those occurring in contexts of resource acquisition, may 72Running head: CRAZY BASTARD 3 reflect the same logic as that underlying male-male violence, namely that the higher fitness 73 payoffs of success make gambling more worthwhile for men, particularly when young. Third, 74 nonviolent risk-taking can honestly signal attributes, including both underlying genetic quality 75 and manifestations such as strength and coordination, that are valued by potential mates, affines, 76 and allies. Fourth, some acts offer inductive potential beyond the specific act itself, as they 77 index the tendency to engage in a larger class of actions of which the observed act is an instance.

Previous research has led to a widely accepted conclusion that heterosexual women prefer mates who are high in dominance. Three experiments designed to distinguish dominance from prestige and examine moderating contextual factors challenge this conclusion. College women at 2 U.S. universities evaluated hypothetical, potential mates described in written vignettes. Participants in Study 1 preferred a high‐prestige to a high‐dominance target. With dominance and prestige manipulated independently in Study 2, participants preferred high to low prestige but also preferred low to high dominance. Participants in Study 3 preferred high to low dominance, but only (a) when displayed in the context of an athletic competition and (b) in ratings of attractiveness and desirability as a short‐term (vs. long‐term) mate.

Narcotics Anonymous (NA) supports long‐term recovery for those addicted to drugs. Paralleling social dynamics in many small‐scale societies, NA exhibits tension between egalitarianism and prestige‐based hierarchy, a problem exacerbated by the addict's personality as characterized by NA's ethnopsychology. We explore how NA's central principle of anonymity normatively translates into egalitarianism among group members. Turning to the lived reality of membership, building on Carr's () concept of script flipping, we identify script embellishment as speech acts that ostensibly conform to normative therapeutic discourse while covertly serving political ends. We argue that, in spite of the overtly egalitarian context, NA members differ dramatically in prestige, with more experienced members being admired and emulated. Critically, prestige acquisition occurs via structural functions that are central to the maintenance of the institution, as experienced members serve a central role in the transmission and enforcement of cultural norms, paradoxically including norms of egalitarianism.